Conclusions: Compared with an isocaloric low-GI meal, a high-GI meal decreased plasma glucose, increased hunger, and selectively stimulated brain regions associated with reward and craving in the late postprandial period, which is a time with special significance to eating behavior at the next meal. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01064778.

Commenting on the study, Dr. Christoph Buettner, an associate professor of neuroscience at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City, told Everyday Health, "Food activates similar areas in the brain as drugs do, that is already accepted." Buettner, who was not involved in the research, added, "The strength of this study is that it shows that the kind of diet you eat can influence this."

The results were a surprise. Participants who ate a diet low in saturated fat and enriched with corn oil reduced their cholesterol by an average of 14 percent, compared with a change of just 1 percent in the control group. But the low-saturated fat diet did not reduce mortality. In fact, the study found that the greater the drop in cholesterol, the higher the risk of death during the trial.

Keys rigged his earlier data to match his prejudices. This later study, which fully disproved the conclusions from the Seven Countries Study, was buried and never published until recently.

So, we are here in super fat and diseased America due to some basic errors most undergrad stat student would recognize.

Fat was demonized due to Type I error (null hypothesis that eating animal fat was OK was REJECTED incorrectly).

It may not align with the what you view as literature on the subject, but it does work the best.

I think you're mistaking the finger for the moon there.

On point 2, I would agree that itf eating a high carb diet / not keto adapted then the only way to lose weight is by starvation. It may result in short term fat loss but over the long term tends to make people fatter by slowing metabolism. That's why all the "biggest loser" people are now fatter than they were when they went on the show.

The mechanics on how metabolism works once a body goes through keto adaptation are very different. It follows different rules. I've tried it myself as have many other people I know. It works and is repeatable and very sustainable.

If someone did they would be breaking the laws of thermodynamics and changing everything we know about human biology.

Here's the history. There are two different competing models of obesity.

There is the thermodynamic model promoted by the Harvard School of Public Health. This is the "newer" model.

Prior to that, the dominant metabolic theory on obesity was the German hormonal model. The energy-in/energy-out idea was not taken seriously.

Post WWII, the center of science shifted to the USA and the hormonal model lost out to the US idea due to politics, not because it was disproven. Problem is the US idea of energy-in/energy out is wrong.

I assure you, humans can lose fat while in caloric surplus. I have done it myself and know many others who have also.

Human metabolisms are highly sensitive to caloric intake so going into caloric deficit will cause metabolic rate to drop to match input levels. Over the short term, caloric deficit tends to cause weight loss. Over the long term, it causes weight gain. That's why everyone in the country who "diets" gets fat again.

Started using it as a training diet for open water swimming & it worked wonderfully. My energy levels were high and I quickly become "bonk proof". I lost 30 pounds of fat with no muscle loss.

It takes about 4 weeks of eating 25 g carbs for your body to hit the first adjustment milestone.

The physical adjustments continue for a few years after that. Your muscle cells will put on more mitochondria among other things and your body will adjust to burning fat for fuel. Short term, you may feel a bit tired but that passes and you'll have more energy than you know what to do with before you know it.

Fasting has become all the rage but avoid it like the plague at least in the short or mid term. DO NOT GO INTO CALORIC DEFICIT. Most people can lose weight on Keto while in a caloric surplus. I lost 30 pounds while eating ~5000 to 6000 cal/day. Going into caloric deficit while not adapted will slow down your metabolism. Once adapted, you can probably safely go into caloric deficit for short periods without slowing down because you are fully plugged into your body fat for fuel.

It's all about the insulin response and has nothing to do with caloric intake. Insulin works like a switch. When insulin is produced, it turns on fat storage and turn off fat burning. Insulin production is triggered when we eat carbs. If we keep carbs low, then we stay in fat burning mode. When we turn fat into ketones, we can just piss them out if we don't need them. We don't need to burn the fat, we can just waste it thus no need to be in caloric deficit.

To avoid feeling like crap in the first 3 or 4 weeks, eat a lot of salt or drink salty broth. Being in keto mode uses more salt than burning carbs, so some people need to up their salt intakes when they switch over.

Gary was a much better X-O coach than Lloyd. He also was not at all risk averse.

Main points of outcome difference:

1997 our offense if far more productive with Gary calling the plays BUT Lloyd may have still been DC and Lloyd's D's weren't all that great. Might have been a wash. Might have taken both polls. Really depends if Lloyd had moved on to a MAC HC job by then.

1999 National Champions. Offense would have been unhinged under Moeller. Every O starter went onto the NFL. Nothing would have stopped us.

Schembechler, Ex-official Blast Big 10 Chief

Even as a baseball man, Bo Schembechler still can make news in the Big 10. It`s a familiar formula: Take Schembechler, game officials and a Big 10 commissioner; mix them up, and you get controversy.

The former Michigan coach and current president of the Detroit Tigers, and Gene Calhoun, the former league supervisor of football officials, may be gone from the Big 10, but they haven`t forgotten. Each has taken aim at second-year Big 10 Commissioner Jim Delany.

Schembechler says Delany called Calhoun in an attempt to ``prejudice``

the officials before Michigan`s game with Illinois last November, a game the Wolverines won.

Calhoun, who acknowledges he received the call, says he`s worried Delany`s influence will have a negative effect on officiating in the Big 10. Calhoun, the league`s supervisor since 1983, and Big 10 parted company after the 1989 season.

``If you don`t know anything about officiating, stay the hell out of it,`` Calhoun said. ``This conference deserves good officiating.``

The latest firestorm was ignited when Schembechler decided to add another chapter to last year`s autobiography, ``Bo.`` Schembechler tells how Delany called Calhoun prior to the Nov. 10 game in Champaign.

Delany reportedly wanted to have the officials pay special attention to a couple of Illinois players who were involved in an altercation the week before at Iowa. Then, according to Bo, he told Calhoun to have the officials make sure Schembechler was on his best sideline behavior.

``What did I ever do to Jim Delany?`` Schembechler wrote. ``I barely know him. He`s not a football guy. . . . Go ahead and accuse me of whining. I know the truth. That phone call prior to the game was an attempt to prejudice the officials in a key game.``

Calhoun said he thought the call was out of line.

``You can`t tell an official he should keep his eye on certain people,``

Calhoun said. ``If I say that as a supervisor, the official will go in the game with a certain mind-set. He`ll make a call against him just to please you.``

Delany was out of town Wednesday and issued this statement through Big 10 spokesman Mark Rudner: ``We will not respond to comments from former coaches and former conference employees.``

Schembechler was unavailable for comment Wednesday. Delany, though, is in good company. Schembechler had plenty of run-ins with his predessor, Wayne Duke.

Schembechler also implied the officials were out to get him in Michigan`s loss in the Rose Bowl. Specifically, the coach referred to the fourth-quarter holding penalty on Bobby Abrams that helped set up Southern Cal`s winning touchdown.

In the officials meeting the day before the game, Calhoun later told Schembechler, the group would make a point of trying to control the coach. At the postgame tailgate party, Calhoun recalled the officials were pleased they didn`t let Schembechler intimidate them. He was hit with an unsportsmanlike penalty for arguing the controversial call.

``In other words, they were out to get something,`` Schembechler wrote.

Calhoun wouldn`t say that the holding penalty was premeditated. However, he said it was a ``bad call.``

``You probably could call something in every play in football,`` Calhoun said.

Calhoun, 67, said philosophical differences with Delany caused him to leave the conference. Delany said he didn`t want Calhoun to talk to the media, which was a point of contention for the supervisor.

Calhoun said Delany also used to call and offer advice prior to a ``big game.``

`` `Big game.` We laughed at that,`` Calhoun said. ``I officiated more than 200 games, and he`s telling me about a `big game.` Every game is big to the kids.``

Calhoun also said he thought Delany was too preoccupied with controlling a coach`s behavior. Delany issued a reprimand to Schembechler after the Rose Bowl. The Wolverines` coach had been known to try to indimidate officials in his day.

``One of the points of emphasis in this administration was sideline control for coaches in all sports, and the sportsmanlike conduct of athletes,`` the Big 10 spokesman Rudner said. ``All the coaches and officials were notified of it numerous times.``

Considering Delany has a documented history of improper influence and contact with officials AND sits in on B1G referee film meetings…I’m sure the results exactly reflect his desires. Delany needs to go.

I listened to the feed on WCBN Sports for most of the season (turned down the TV sound) and wes very impressed. The banter is much better than either the TV talking heads and I found it superior to listening to Brandy. Reminded me of listening to Hemmingway on WUOM back in the day to a degree since it's non-comercial radio with no breaks at all. Great stuff. Synced up reasonably well to the TV broadcasts for the most part as well.

Michigan could clearly have most of or even more money if it were to go independent.

The officiating in the B1G is horseshit, so really negative value in that respect. Considering Delany sits in on officiating meetings….

The B1G didn’t prevent Ohio State from going SEC and paying players / impermissible benefits. Negative value. Main value of a conference is keeping every team playing by the same set of rules. That isn’t happening.

The B1G didn’t stand up for Michigan when FREEP / NCAA came with a trumped up investigation into freaking practice time.

I question if the CIC is really of that much value in the information age.

Tradition and geography are probably the best two reasons to stay in.

Best solution is to get rid of shitty Delany. Bo hated him for good reason.

Also consider the power Micromanager Delany would have over the previously fired official in this game. Thinking back to the article about Delany dismissing the whole crew for sub-par performance in the Purdue game, I thought perhaps Delany was making the announcement for emphasis and perhaps to save face with the conference coaches...but the articles from the Chi Trib makes it sound like he is effectively managing the officials in some degree AND also trying to influence them. The power to influence the fired official whom he brought back onboard who did work The Game would be immense! The official knows Delany will can him again if he doesn’t get the results he wants and expects...

David Parry calls the video a ``hit parade,`` but more accurately it`s hits and misses.

``Now look here,`` says the Big 10`s supervisor of football officials, flashing a red light at the screen.

The 40 or so officials watch intently in the basement of Parry`s home in Michigan City, Ind. They are gathered for the almost weekly Wednesday skull session Parry holds for his crew. Attendance is voluntary, but on this night, officials from Iowa to Pittsburgh have made the trip.

The purpose is to watch a compilation of 72 plays from the previous week`s games. The majority are good calls.

From the Michigan-Michigan State game, Parry praises the official on an offensive holding flag.

``See, he takes him down, the man was beat,`` Parry says. ``That`s a good call.``

But there also are bad calls, 19 of them on this night. The film rolls, and the offending officials squirm quietly, with Big 10 Commissioner Jim Delany watching on the side. ``OK, here the ball appears to come out,`` says Parry of a play from the Purdue-Minnesota game. ``It`s a fumble.``

Even as a baseball man, Bo Schembechler still can make news in the Big 10. It`s a familiar formula: Take Schembechler, game officials and a Big 10 commissioner; mix them up, and you get controversy.

The former Michigan coach and current president of the Detroit Tigers, and Gene Calhoun, the former league supervisor of football officials, may be gone from the Big 10, but they haven`t forgotten. Each has taken aim at second-year Big 10 Commissioner Jim Delany.

Schembechler says Delany called Calhoun in an attempt to ``prejudice``

the officials before Michigan`s game with Illinois last November, a game the Wolverines won.

Calhoun, who acknowledges he received the call, says he`s worried Delany`s influence will have a negative effect on officiating in the Big 10. Calhoun, the league`s supervisor since 1983, and Big 10 parted company after the 1989 season.

``If you don`t know anything about officiating, stay the hell out of it,`` Calhoun said. ``This conference deserves good officiating.``

The latest firestorm was ignited when Schembechler decided to add another chapter to last year`s autobiography, ``Bo.`` Schembechler tells how Delany called Calhoun prior to the Nov. 10 game in Champaign.

Delany reportedly wanted to have the officials pay special attention to a couple of Illinois players who were involved in an altercation the week before at Iowa. Then, according to Bo, he told Calhoun to have the officials make sure Schembechler was on his best sideline behavior.

``What did I ever do to Jim Delany?`` Schembechler wrote. ``I barely know him. He`s not a football guy. . . . Go ahead and accuse me of whining. I know the truth. That phone call prior to the game was an attempt to prejudice the officials in a key game.``

Calhoun said he thought the call was out of line.

``You can`t tell an official he should keep his eye on certain people,``

Calhoun said. ``If I say that as a supervisor, the official will go in the game with a certain mind-set. He`ll make a call against him just to please you.``

Delany was out of town Wednesday and issued this statement through Big 10 spokesman Mark Rudner: ``We will not respond to comments from former coaches and former conference employees.``

Schembechler was unavailable for comment Wednesday. Delany, though, is in good company. Schembechler had plenty of run-ins with his predessor, Wayne Duke.

Schembechler also implied the officials were out to get him in Michigan`s loss in the Rose Bowl. Specifically, the coach referred to the fourth-quarter holding penalty on Bobby Abrams that helped set up Southern Cal`s winning touchdown.

In the officials meeting the day before the game, Calhoun later told Schembechler, the group would make a point of trying to control the coach. At the postgame tailgate party, Calhoun recalled the officials were pleased they didn`t let Schembechler intimidate them. He was hit with an unsportsmanlike penalty for arguing the controversial call.

``In other words, they were out to get something,`` Schembechler wrote.

Calhoun wouldn`t say that the holding penalty was premeditated. However, he said it was a ``bad call.``

``You probably could call something in every play in football,`` Calhoun said.

Calhoun, 67, said philosophical differences with Delany caused him to leave the conference. Delany said he didn`t want Calhoun to talk to the media, which was a point of contention for the supervisor.

Calhoun said Delany also used to call and offer advice prior to a ``big game.``

`` `Big game.` We laughed at that,`` Calhoun said. ``I officiated more than 200 games, and he`s telling me about a `big game.` Every game is big to the kids.``

Calhoun also said he thought Delany was too preoccupied with controlling a coach`s behavior. Delany issued a reprimand to Schembechler after the Rose Bowl. The Wolverines` coach had been known to try to indimidate officials in his day.

``One of the points of emphasis in this administration was sideline control for coaches in all sports, and the sportsmanlike conduct of athletes,`` the Big 10 spokesman Rudner said. ``All the coaches and officials were notified of it numerous times.``

The problem with the “score more points” theory comes down to how many more points is it really possible to score to take the game out of the hands of the officials?

To a certain extent I agree with you. That was a key flaw in Llloydball. Unnecessarily close games can have unexpected outcomes. Key problem here is in the games like MSU last season and Ohio State this season, officiating caused multi score swings of perhaps 14 to 17 points in each contest. We got O’Nieled in Iowa to a degree also but perhaps not as bad as last year.

We did finish the Ohio State game...as a passing team should and had we gotten the PI calls that any reasonable official would make, then we win on the scoreboard too. (We did win, I don’t care what the scoreboard said. We beat the bucknuts and the Ohio fans I’ve talked to all know it.).

Now, if you would say that we need to develop the ability to finish a game on the ground with some sort of power run offense, sure, I could agree with that, but not every good team can do that.